Conclusion

At first I believed that the Hollywood of today still creates a place for the outsider and loves the rebels, but through further research I have discovered that this in no longer the case. Outsiders are interesting, entertaining and at times shocking and thought provoking. However, through the rapid change of the studio system of the past years, the "that film made money, lets make a similar one" approach, the formula has changed somewhat. When these first few films explicitly about the outsiders, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" were released, they were socially relevant to the times and as times were always changing in the 1960s, films that focused on the outsider could always be told in more fresh and original ways. The late 1970s saw the advent of the blockbuster and while the characters did not have an awful lot of depth, the film still managed to be entertaining. From the huge sums of money made from them, Hollywood got a little carried away. Suddenly this was the only type of film that they could produce. Sure, they always wanted their films to be successful  but the artistic and creative freedom they once gave to their filmmakers was now slim and could only grow if the director was already established. Through looking at the figures, it seemed the more simple you go the more money you make. It has now gotten to the point where the industry churns out the same stuff every year, just because it's safe and easy. They have resorted to something lower than the "Star Wars" formula where the protagonists are now so flat and unoriginal, that it prevents the film from being engaging for me, not helped by the corporate atmosphere of a multiplex screening room. Not to mention the characters are usually played by a big stars which constantly takes me out of the film. You'll have no chance of concentrating if your brain keeps thinking "hey look it's Tom Cruise on the screen". Within the mainstream, the outsider has now been fully replaced by the generic invulnarable hero, and who can identify with that?

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE

The biggest shame is that they are not attempting to prove the old time Marxist theorists wrong. That pop culture can indeed be art. In these cases I would have to agree with them that while the films may entertain you, give you certain emotions, you feel restored as soon as the credits roll and will not be thinking about it a week later. There are fewer and fewer occasions where something has been intellectually or emotionally interesting, "Donnie Darko" being one of the most recent, and that was over 10 years ago. I do not wish to make a generalization and say that all mainstream films are the same, or even that they are completely without merits, but more often than not, the basic genre conventions overshadow anything good the film had going for it.